Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1 The Effect of Political Correctness on Politics 
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    February 25, 2012

    By Warren Beatty
    The late Charlton Heston once said, "Political correctness is tyranny with manners."

    The rationale of political correctness (PC) is to prevent supposed minorities from being offended (the manners) -- to compel people (the tyranny) to avoid using words or behavior that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat, the ugly, or any other minority group identified by those who define PC. Its primary method is the redefinition or replacement of words and behavior in order to avoid offense, to be sensitive to the feelings of minorities.

    Before we can examine PC and its effect on politics, we must first understand PC's origin and purpose.

    The concept of PC was developed at the Institute for Social Research, in Frankfurt, Germany, in the early 1920s. The institute considered why communism in Russia was not spreading westward. The conclusion was that Western civilization, with its belief that the individual could develop valid ideas, was the problem. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas came from the state, that the individual is nothing. The institute believed that the only way for communism to advance and spread was to help Western civilization destroy itself, or else force it to.

    The institute said that by undercutting Western civilization's foundations by weakening the rights of individuals through the change of speech and thought patterns, by spreading the idea that vocalizing beliefs was disrespectful to others and had to be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustice, Western civilization could be destroyed. The institute wanted to call its method something that sounded positive -- thus "political correctness."

    Another communist, Chairman Mao Zedong, in China in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the Chinese people, thus giving us the PC concept of "sensitivity training."

    Today we can add socialism to communism. Does the addition of that economic philosophy alter the original intent of PC in any way?

    Here are two specific examples of PC and of not being sensitive.

    First, a famous PC incident occurred in Washington, D.C. in 1999. David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., correctly used the word "niggardly" in reference to a particularly small budget item. This reference upset one of his black colleagues, who interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. The use of the word "niggardly" was not PC due to its phonetic similarity to the racial slur "******," despite the fact that the two words are etymologically unrelated. Howard was not "sensitive" or PC. He actually resigned his job, but was reinstated after a national outcry over the conflation of unrelated terms.

    The cited incident (and others like it) raise the question, "Are we now to abandon the use of certain useful words in the English language in the name of sensitivity and PC?"

    We can now examine how PC specifically affects politics.

    PC particularly serves mediocre politicians and the bureaucrats they appoint. It is used to hold on to jobs, silencing critics and threatening anyone who questions their abilities. If the offended party can strike back with accusation of racism, discrimination, prejudice, and hatred, then PC has done its job. PC is a way of covering up incompetence and corruption. It has worked well in the U.S. for decades: attack the accuser. Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP, wrote, "Let me tell you something about political correctness: when politicians start overdoing it with PC, rest assured they're either hopeless at what they do or have screwed everything up big time."

    The current uproar about the Health and Human Services (HHS) edict on birth control is a good example of the PC problem. The HHS edict said it wanted to expand "health care preventive services." But that PC phrase included some services that were contrary to the First-Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. PC tends to eliminate any possibility of the discussion of the rightness and wrongness of a particular action through the restraint of free speech.

    As a final example of PC run amok, consider this: Why have "swamps" been replaced by "wetlands"? Why have "rainforests" replaced "jungles"? Are they not the same things? A government that wants to spend taxpayer money on conservation needs to avoid the negative connotations involving parasites and disease, so it redefines/replaces words in order to be more PC. The preservation of wetlands is a much more noble cause than preserving a mosquito-infested swamp.

    The continuing necessity for PC and sensitivity indicates that the ideal of societal equality (as defined by the PC-definers) has not yet been realized.

    Where, ultimately, can PC take us? One forecast was published in 1949 by George Orwell. In his book 1984, Orwell, characterizing "newspeak," wrote, "The destruction of words is a beautiful thing." Big Brother, the personification of the power of the state, through newspeak "simplified" words (gave them definitions he determined) to better control society. With the simplification of words, the younger generations knew only Big Brother's version of reality. Is PC today's newspeak?

    Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.


    Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/artic..._politics.html at February 25, 2012 - 10:34:45 AM CST
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz1nPvJ2wRB


    not

    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member Zeus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tiny Redneck town in Texas
    Posts
    2,054
    The so called "uproar" over the Forced mandate of including birth control in the nationalized medicine isn't a matter of Political correctness but one of Constitutionality. Calling it PC and claiming it shuts out discussion is pure BS. Calling it PC is in fact an attempt to thwart proponents of the Constitution
    The 21st century. The age of Smart phones and Stupid people.

    It is said that branches draw their life from the vine. Each is separate yet all are one as they share one life giving stem . The Bible tells us we are called to a similar union in life, our lives with the life of God. We are incorporated into him; made sharers in his life. Apart from this union we can do nothing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NJ, Exit Only
    Posts
    7,977
    What a great article!
    "The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz1nPvJ2wRB


    not

    That was my first thought when I saw the author's name, but the Hollywood Warren Beatty isn't capable of this kind of article.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeus View Post
    The so called "uproar" over the Forced mandate of including birth control in the nationalized medicine isn't a matter of Political correctness but one of Constitutionality. Calling it PC and claiming it shuts out discussion is pure BS. Calling it PC is in fact an attempt to thwart proponents of the Constitution
    PC is an attempt to thwart any principled dissent. By defining the boundaries of discussion, the left excludes any topics that they don't want to discuss, and demonizes their opponents. It's intellectual thuggery. PC allows leftists to censor their critics and eliminates the need to physically burn books and risk increasing their carbon footprint.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •